Driver to drive?

[Kris Krieger]

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
news:1f529cd9-ae3f-4029-bed5-959a0b92f86e@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 23, 3:46 am, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
[snip]

And even that opinion probably relies on what Margaret Mead was told
by a bunch of mischievious adolescents.

What "opinion"?

That Polynesian-based island cultures are fairly casual re: sex.'

THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID!

I said that the only examples I'd heard of, regarding cultuers whose
social-religuious views were more relaxed re: casual sex than Catholicisn,
were A FEW isolated islands with Polynesian cultures.

A FEW. Good grief!!

Pretty much every report except Margaret Mead's said they weren't.

Again, I said A FEW, I did *NOT* say "all"! Maybe Meade was unfortunately
duped, but Meade is not the one and only end-all-and-be-all source.

 Do you think I'm just making everything up out of the
blue?

No. I think you get your information the same way that I do - by
reading books intended for the general audience - and you missed the
tolerably recent revelation that Margaret Mead had been duped by her
informants.

Again, I don't keep lists of every single thing I read that's cross-
referenced as to topic, so I can't offer any such list and won't bother
even trying.

But that still does not make it valid for your to shove words into my
mouth. "A few" is generally considered (or at elast, used to be) to be
"more than two and less than a dozen".

SO unless you can provide me with spefic references showing that ZERO
island cultures had less-rigorous strictures than has the Catholic church,
your attack remains specious.

Are you so upset merly becasue I said that, on the surface of it,
a couple of JL's obervations are probably correct, that you're now
accusing me of merely inventing things?

I don't think that the formulation I used implied that you were
inventing anything - at worst I was claiming that you weren't
omniscient, and nobody in their right mind thinks that they are
omnisicient.

(1) I never claimed to be omniscient, nor have I implied to be so. I said,
"There are only a few cases I know of where X is true" It's patently
obvious that this statement is completely different from saying that "I can
state as an absolute fact that, in all cases X is true".
(2) you still have not made an adequate case that not even "a few" above-
referenced societies had exactly the same strictness of rules against
casual sex as does Catholicism (similarly to some, and IIRC many, other
Eurasian religions), and therefore have not negated my recollection
regarding that.

I use hedge words when I don't know all the facts, I specify gaps in my
knoweldge, and I say "IMO" when something is largely just my opinion.  
SO
I hope you are not implying that I'm merley making stuff up, merely
because I said that I think one little statement seems to be accurate.

Like I said above. I don't think that what I wrote implied that you
had invented anything.

Maybe that's not what you intentended, but that is not what I perceived.

snip

So, rather than only stating "the Pope", John should have said "most
leaders of religions which have their roots in Eurasia".

Except that the Pope is pretty much unique in proscibing access to
mechanical precautions for those who can't manage abstinence and
fidelity.

I am not absolutely certain that he is unique in that, therefore, I did
not state such uniqueness.  I still am not absolutely certain that he i
s
thusly unique, so I still am not goign to state it.  And it wasn't the
point I was trying to make.

No other religious leader has been reported as having gone out of his
way to claim that condoms are a bad thing.

Perhaps so; I merely said that I haven't looked into it and therefore
cannot claim that with any confidence. What's the argument with someone
saying "I haven't researched it so I can't claim to know it to be a fact"?

The error most peopel make today is in assuming that, simply becasue
ancient people had no cell phones or cars, they were stupid.  They
weren't, and probably had to be much smarter to survive than do
today'
s
coddled masses. So no, they did not know what 'vibrio cholerae' was,
but they could certainly observe that someone ate oysters ro clams,
an
d
developed a lethal case of the shits - *and* they could observe that
there was no way to tell *which* shellfish were deadly (becuase
tehre is no way to visually discern which are or are nto infected).
 So, being smart, they said, "Hell, *I'* not gonna eat that stuff,
and neither is my family!"

Things such as the laws about what can be planted, and when, and
wher, were rooted in observation; laws about not eating meat with
dairy were to pervent waste in an unforgiving environment; laws re:
what to use for weaving cloth could have ben related to observing
what made forstronger cloth versus weaker cloth.  

Same goes for sex.  Even aside from issues of human jealousy and
questions of who will suport kids (i.e. paternity questions), the
same principles of observation applied to the spread of STDs.

THe problem is that cause-and-effect are not always observable,
leadin
g
to errors in discerning what causes something.  So, if someone spat
over
his left shoulder during a hunt, and then narrowly missed getting
gore
d
by a wild boar, he might decide that he escaped harm becaus ehe spit
over his left shoulder.  That is part of the cause behind religious
errors.

Many religious rules were
probably evolved as methods to reduce communicable diseases.

That probably needs to be put the other way around; the religions
that had adopted sexuall restrictive rules prospered because fewer
o
f
their followers suffered from sexually transmitted diseases;
evolution dictated which religions were successful rather than the
rules that they adopted.

Sorry, but that's simply not the generally-accepted thesis.
Observation of effect, followed by a "don't do that, it's dangerous"
rule also just makes a lot more sense.  

John is right on this one.

He's not. Religious rules don't evolve separately. Each religion
comes with its own packet of rules - some useful and some nuts - and
you can't pick and choose the ones you are going to follow.

Uh, this stuff goes back a couple thousand years before religion as we
know it developed.  I'm talking about the development of rules from
observations, and how those rules become incorporated into religion.

The rules may have observed from rational observation. Once they got
incorporated into a religion they ceased to be susceptible to rational
consideration.

Uh, that's basically what I said, tho' I didn't think it necessary to beat
the proverbial dead horse of religion placing itself outside fo rationsl
analysis, because that wasn't realted to the process I was, to the best of
my understanding, trying to elucidate.

All religions depend on the authority of a god, or a bunch of gods who
are only accessible via the religious authority. Disagreeing with the
religious authority - for any reason - is heresy, because it threatens
that religious authority.

I know that. Again, tho' I was talking about the process by which
observations can become rules and how those rules can become incorporated
into religion, with the additional detail that observations can't always
discern true cause and effect and therefore can lead to faulty assumptions
that give rise to irrational rules.

What happened after the formation of recognizably-modern religion is a
different matter.

Not really.

It's different fromt he matter of the original process/history.

Modern government is just a highly evolved a protection
racket, and modern religion is just a highly evolved confidence trick.
The modern variants are much more than just protection rackets and
confidence tricks respectively, but looking at them from that point of
view makes it much easier to predict how they are going to react in
any given situation, because it concenrates one's mind on the basis of
the relationship between the leders and the lead.

Perhaps, although my own view is less cynical - but still different from
describing the original process. It's a new chapter so to speak. A
different point.

The only way a particular packet of rules is going to come to
dominate a society is by demonstating superior evolutionary fitness;
the group that follows the best set of rules becomes more numerous,
richer and more powerful than the groups that have been stuck with
less satisfactory sets of rules by their founders

"Evolutionary fitness"?  observation-based health laws weren't a byprod
uct
of religion, but the other way around.  

That constitutes a hypothesis about the basis of religion - that it
was developed to justify the imposition of a set of health laws. My
alternative hypothesis is that religion was developed as a means of
acquiring political influence by non-military means, and the health-
related religious rules were instituted primarily to provide to
provide a forum where the religious leader could exercise that
political influence without upsetting the military -based power
structure.

I guess I've read different books and other sources. I disagree on the
basis of what I've read and heard re: the development of Human
spirituality. I was starting from ideas concerning the earliest
development os Human spirituality among isolated small bands of hunter-
gatherers, and how that ie likely to have evolved into various religions.
I don't think that such bands would have sat up one dayus and said "Hey!
If we had religion, we could convince Zopglog's band to join us!" Given
that these things evolve, I also can't think that the desire for conquest
drove the ceration of religion. It's more likely that the absolutism of
every religion's belief in its own supremacy has, at various times in
history, combined with desires for territory and resources, and *that8 led
to aggression. It di deventually happen that people realized religion
could be used as a form of "soft conquest" and, if that didn't work, as a
way to convince the poeple (i.e. pool of potential soldiers) that a war
would be justified by "divine favor" so to speak. Btu I don't see how or
why religion would have spontaneously sprung up as a means or justification
for conquest - other aspects of Human society and psychology had to develop
first.

It's not the case that someone invents a belief system, and then looks
aro
und for events that fit into it - as humans developed mentally, they
developed spiritual ideas that eventually developed into religions
(meaning, rules regarding rituals and behaviors and integrated into a
standardized definition of the non-physical world/universe).  It's
similar to how something someone did might become a story, that's
embellished with each retelling until it becomes Mythology.

Thats a hypothesis about the belief systems that were available to
provide the basis to build the poltical structures that we label as
religions. Organised religions don't grow out of their belief
structures, any more than armies grow out of their weapons systems -

That's not a good analogy. "Tactics" would have been better than
"weapons". Anyway, you're also stating a hhypothesis which AFAICT is your
own.

organised religions exploit the belief structures available to justify
their poltical influence.

The power of a religion lies in how many followers it can gain.  Some of
that numberical increase is due to birth rates, but even a brief glance
a t
Christianity shows birth rate was insignificant compared with
conversions and, later on, conquest.  Given that Christians dispensed
with most Jewish
cleanliness laws, if a religion's spread was related to "evolutionary
fitness", Judaism ought to be far more dominant than Christianity.

The Jewish cleanliness laws represent a serious over-kill - keeping a
completely kosher kitchen takes a lot of work,

When they weer being developed, there were no such things as kitchens. I
wasnt' referring to modern elaborations of those laws, but rather, to
what's commonly taken to be the pre-written-history roots of those laws.

and the effort doesn't
pay off with a proportionate increase in health.
Christian groups
spent less time in the kitchen so they had had more time available to
spend on converting their neighbours within their society (when they
were still a minority) and more time available to support the armies
that went out and conquered other societies once they had taken over
their own societies.

That doesn't even make sense - just because one family eats shellfish and
another does not, has no bearing whatsoever upon "time spent in the
'kitchen'". Also, it was women and girls who would be doing food
preparation, with a few large-scale butchering tasks left to men (women
could easily wring the neck of a domestic fowl and pluck it), therefore,
it's not relevant to freeing up men to go to war.

And it's the time women spent preparing food is also not relevant to
whetehr men had free time to go around converting others - *nobody* had
much free time, because maintaining a small far, or even living in a trown
prior to the advnet of machines, was labor-intensive and time-intensive -
that did not magically change just because of cleanliness laws. THe fact
is that thos elaws didn't add all that much to the ingherently-difficult
life led by poeple in the early days of Christianity and prior to the
Rennaissance (and most people had extremely difficult lives for a few
huyndred years after that). There are cultural reasons for the spread fo
Christianity, but merely ditching the cleanliness laws wasn't one of them.
If people wore clothing that was primarily pure wool, they did so because
cotton did not grow in Europe and making linen is far more labor-intensive,
and therefore costly, so it was irrelevant that they didn't wear pure wool
because of Leviticus.

 It isn't, and history, plus a comparison of the relative degree of
evangelistic tenets in Christianity versus Judaism, explain the reasons
for that.  And related to evangalism is the fact that Christianity, far
more than any previous religion, specifically addressed the "average
joes
"
and, more importantly, the poor and the enslaved, and in addition even
to that, also incorporated various rituals and symbols from the poeples
bein
g
converted - that's how we got Christmas trees, the Easter Bunny, and
various other symbologies - the early Evangelists were very clever when
t
i
came to putting a Christian interpretation on a people's perexisting
paga
n
symbols and rituals, which lent even more authority to Christianity but
"showing" that it had presaged even those symbols/rituals.  Prior to th
at,
spreading a religion was merely a matter of conquest, which inevitably
failed as conquest breeds resentment.  Christianity's incorporation of
many existing festivals/symbols sidestepped that resentment, thereby
gaining converts at a tremendous rate.  

Christianity was scarcely unique in this respect - the Greek
"mysteries" from the same period were similarly eclectic.

But what you are saying is that Christianity was a mutant form

No, CHristianity is an offshoot of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, remember?

Don't say "you said", when I didn't say.

of
Judaism which demonstrated superior fitness within Roman society,

No, it appealed to a greater number of poeple becasue it placed value, and
the hope of salvation, *equally* upon poor people and rich people, and did
not require costly offering at a temple (which the poor could not afford to
make).

I'm not going to apply your pohrase "evolutionary fitness" to this context;
although the word "evolution" can be applied any time one thing develops
from another thing, the phrase "evolutionary fitness" only makes sense to
me when describing biological systems, and is, in this context, inaccurate
and misleading.

not
only vis-a-vis Judaism but also versus the Roman state religion, and a
number of other options like Mithraism, though it has been claimed
that Paul incorporated a lot of Mithraic ideas into his version of
Christianity,

I wrote a whole paragraph as to early Christianity's ability to integrate
and redefine pre-existing rituals and symbols. So...?

and that Constantine effectively fused Mithraism into
Christianity when he declared "Christianity" to be the state religion
of the Roman Empire.

I didn't say anything about Constantine, the Romans, or Mithraism.

Whatever else was going on then, the choice ritualised health rules
wasn't a particularly important factor.

snip

Huh? I never said it was a factor in Christianity's spread. That one was
your notion.

 

[Ben Jackson]

On 2008-09-23, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

You can get down to about 100 ps, 3 GHz or so, with Xacto knives and
copperclad. Kapton tape can be really helpful...

Are you crazy?? I can't afford kapton tape! ;-)

But seriously, is there a supplier for kapton that's not $25-40/roll?

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD
<ben@ben.com>
http://www.ben.com/

 

[Hal Murray]

Are you crazy?? I can't afford kapton tape! ;-)
But seriously, is there a supplier for kapton that's not $25-40/roll?

How long will a roll last? Is it worth worring about the cost?


--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <MPG.23429b985af3209798a1e1@news.individual.net>, krw wrote:

In article <48D89539.3187D137@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...


krw wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
krw wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
krw wrote:

You're going to have to justify that number. 100MB/s?

He said kBps.

Don't know what I was looking at. ...ahead at WiFi??

I can see 20KB, *maybe*.

44.1k samples / sec x 2 bytes each = 88.2kBps. Allow overhead for collisions etc. Actually
if you transmit the full AES/EBU SPDIF data it's THREE bytes.

100kBps sounds about right for one mono channel. Or 150 kBps with flags etc.

Ok, now put three or four of these together and it's still easily
manageable over WiFi.

With Quality of Service and no latency ?

Send it a dozen times. Timing shouldn't be too much of a problem.
The clock can be updated periodically. This stuff isn't all *that*
hard, at least good enough for audio.

Your phrase "good enough for audio" does not inspire confidence. I work in the professional /
production area of audio. 'Good enough' usually isn't for us. Indeed, for a host of reasons I'd also
probably want to transmit 24 bit audio. Some customers might want 96 kHz sampling too.

Yes, I know you're a "professional" audiophool. If you can't hear
it, it's good enough. Fer instance, millisecond is good enough as
long as all channels are together. They all get the same signal.

Go on. Ask why !

Why? I could care less about "professional" audiophoolery. BTW, we
were talking about powered speakers, not "professional" grade audio.
96kHz? What nonsense.

I occaisionally hear artifacts in 16 bit 44.1 KHz, in music.

It is easy to make a test signal turn up severe artifacts with 44.1 KHz
sample - see what happens with a sinewave at a higher audio frequency that
is several Hz off a frequency that the sample frequency is a multiple of.

Since I only occaisionally hear artifacts in music with 44.1 KHz 16 bit,
and when I do I usually find them minor, I would expect a sample rate
twice as high as that to be OK.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Den]

<sfisher@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:3a24d9b0-d551-4d3e-9ca2-a9ea07f8d041@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

Hi,

I'm looking to source a mini camera, like a mobile phone or webcam
camera. Must be PCB mountable, built in fixed lense with short focal
length (around 10-15mm) for a new product design. Probably looking to
outsource design of PCBs to incorporate USB interface function.
Anybody interested or know anyone who can (pref. in UK)?

Thanks
Simon Fisher
Swansea UK

Canialise / source parts via one of those little usb microscopes. Sold as
both toys & education products, low cost.

 

[Phil Allison]

"RichD"
"Kevin Aylward"

http://www.studiomaster.com/1984%20-%201986.htm

"This was the amplifier pro sound companies were waiting for;
many buy up to 100 units. "

Did you use MOSFET on the output stage, and why?

** The amp used Hitachi lateral mosfets - egs 2SK176 & 2SJ56.

For technical reasons, that have been stated here and are completely beyond
your infinitesimal comprehension.

You damn troll.



...... Phil

 

[Mr.T]

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrngdit8a.i7u.don@manx.misty.com...

I occaisionally hear artifacts in 16 bit 44.1 KHz, in music.
It is easy to make a test signal turn up severe artifacts with 44.1 KHz
sample - see what happens with a sinewave at a higher audio frequency that
is several Hz off a frequency that the sample frequency is a multiple of.

You should simply use a system that is not "broken" then.

Since I only occaisionally hear artifacts in music with 44.1 KHz 16 bit,
and when I do I usually find them minor, I would expect a sample rate
twice as high as that to be OK.

Of course it is, as is a *competently* designed 44.1 or 48kHz system.
Using either doesn't present much of a problem these days.

MrT.

 

[Mook Johnson]

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:0cgCk.1383$YU2.167@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...

Most schematics for half bridges contain two caps, like this one:

http://schmidt-walter.eit.h-da.de/smps_e/hgw_smps_e.html

What's the point? If you leave off one of the caps it works just as well.
Unless the bridge can coast which it usually can't there also won't be any
advantage in avoiding a DC run-up.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

How about startup transient before the single cap charged up. The
transformer must be designed to see full DC voltage for a few cycles without
saturating. Also the that full voltage will be reflected across the
transformer to the secondaries and might either cause problems or require
the peak voltage rating to be somewhat higher.

 

[Mike Monett]

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Most schematics for half bridges contain two caps, like this one:

http://schmidt-walter.eit.h-da.de/smps_e/hgw_smps_e.html

What's the point? If you leave off one of the caps it works just
as well. Unless the bridge can coast which it usually can't there
also won't be any advantage in avoiding a DC run-up.

It keeps the high frequency switching current out of the main filter
cap. The current could be significant in high power apps.

This means the main cap doesn't need low ESR and low inductance,
which makes it expensive.

The two caps in series carry all the switching current and need low
ESR. But they can be smaller and cheaper since they run at much
higher frequency.

For low power applications, it probably doesn't make much
difference.

Regards,

Mike Monett

 

[Kris Krieger]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
news:bqgid45ounmu623t64j4jrd381hlato0hu@4ax.com:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:54:07 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in
wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
news:1f529cd9-ae3f-4029-bed5-959a0b92f86e@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 23, 3:46 am, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
[snip]

And even that opinion probably relies on what Margaret Mead was told
by a bunch of mischievious adolescents.

What "opinion"?

That Polynesian-based island cultures are fairly casual re: sex.'

THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID!

I said that the only examples I'd heard of, regarding cultuers whose
social-religuious views were more relaxed re: casual sex than
Catholicisn,
were A FEW isolated islands with Polynesian cultures.

A FEW. Good grief!!

Sloman lives to prove how smart he is and how dumb you are. He doesn't
have much else to do. You're rassling with pigs here. Very, very
boring pigs.

John

I dunno, all I can say is that it's frustrating when a point is so badly
missed.

Actually, Ithink I didn't even say "polynesian culture", but rather,
something like culture of polynesian origin. Given that teh Polynesians
spread across INdonesia and thousands of islands inthe pacific, I cannto
comprehend how *none* would be less strict than most Eurasian religions and
especially Catholicism. That's confusing and frustrating to me.

I don't want to claim "pig rassling", because I've seen Bill make some
points that I thought to be reasonable (and I tend to be somehwat, well,
insensate regarding the more personality-related bits), but this seemed to
undergo a peculiar sort of "frctal degeneration" that exchanges sometimes
get bogged down in, where tangential points are picked up, spun out,
embellished/elaborated, while the actual point/topic languishes.

Then too, I know that my communiction is far from perfect, and I don't mind
correction, but I *do* mind egregious mistatements...

 

[Kris Krieger]

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
news:54eb0ae5-608c-4b51-87b1-528820d4a1c5@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 24, 4:54 am, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:

I read through your post, and we've actually been talking about 2 differnt
things; I'd thought it was perhistory/development if ideas tht alter on
became incorporated into religion, but you're talking about more modern
history, what religions do once they've become power hierarchies.

OK, I'm less confused now. (Well, about that, anyway =:-o )

Given the divergence, there isn't an argument, just two different topics.

I'll go through the rest of it and then see whether I'm not clear on any
points, or want to elaborate on any particular thought. For now, I'll just
say that much - it's been a busy week and I need to have my "word tank"
refilled

 

[Mike Monett]

Mike Monett <None@here.adr> wrote:

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

I tried the inductor and wasn't too enthused. With a small damper
resistor inparallel it was kind of ok but still cost efficiency.

But it's done, I just lashed up the usual discrete concoction
that provides proper dead time and all that. Now it's moving on
to the dreaded packaging design. As much fun as eating pea soup
and I don't like pea soup. Ok, with some Johnsonville Brats in
there I'll eat it.

Joerg, I'm surprised it affected the efficiency enough to make a
difference. Did you simulate it or try it on the bench? And did
you use the smallest inductor needed to limit the current? Did it
somehow drastically increase the turnoff times?

I did a small simulation in LTspice. The SPICE model for the
FDD8424H is available from Fairchild, but it is for PSPice. I didn't
want to take the time to make a model for LTspice, so I used IRF530
and IRF7204 for complimentary MOSFETs. I adjusted the rise and fall
time of the gate drive to give about 50ns cross-conduction.

I increased the series inductor between the MOSFETs to 3uH and used
a 47 ohm damping resistor.

The switching losses end up heating the damping resistor, so the
integral of the power dissipated gives the total loss. For this
simulation, the result is 52.114mW.

If the power delivered to the load is 3 watts, using a series
inductor to minimize shoot-through adds 52.114e-3 / 3 = 1.73% to the
total power dissipation. This is a rather small amount for the
simplicity and reliability gained.

Any circuit changes to reduce the power loss in switching will
probably cost additional power, so the overall gain might be small
or negative.

The conclusion is a small series inductor can be a viable option to
minimize shoot-through and reduce circuit complexity.

The LTSPICE ASC file is below, followed by the PLT file. The .tran
analysis string is set to 1uS to show the switching waveforms.
Increase it to 1ms to calculate the power in R2.

Best Regards,

Mike Monett

Version 4
SHEET 1 948 800
WIRE 224 16 48 16
WIRE 528 16 224 16
WIRE 48 32 48 16
WIRE 224 32 224 16
WIRE 528 32 528 16
WIRE 176 48 144 48
WIRE 480 48 448 48
WIRE 48 128 48 112
WIRE 224 144 224 128
WIRE 256 144 224 144
WIRE 320 144 256 144
WIRE 528 144 528 128
WIRE 560 144 528 144
WIRE 608 144 560 144
WIRE 688 144 608 144
WIRE 320 160 320 144
WIRE 608 208 608 144
WIRE 688 208 688 144
WIRE 256 256 224 256
WIRE 320 256 320 240
WIRE 320 256 256 256
WIRE 224 272 224 256
WIRE 96 352 48 352
WIRE 144 352 144 48
WIRE 144 352 96 352
WIRE 176 352 144 352
WIRE 48 368 48 352
WIRE 560 368 528 368
WIRE 608 368 608 288
WIRE 608 368 560 368
WIRE 688 368 688 288
WIRE 688 368 608 368
WIRE 224 384 224 368
WIRE 528 384 528 368
WIRE 48 464 48 448
WIRE 144 464 144 352
WIRE 448 464 448 48
WIRE 448 464 144 464
WIRE 480 464 448 464
WIRE 528 496 528 480
FLAG 96 352 M1G
FLAG 48 128 0
FLAG 256 256 M1D
FLAG 224 384 0
FLAG 48 464 0
FLAG 256 144 M2S
FLAG 560 368 M3D
FLAG 528 496 0
FLAG 560 144 M4S
SYMBOL Nmos 176 272 R0
SYMATTR InstName M1
SYMATTR Value IRF530
SYMBOL voltage 48 352 R0
WINDOW 123 24 134 Left 0
WINDOW 3 -128 159 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR Value PULSE(0 12 0 100n 100n 5u 10u)
SYMATTR InstName V2
SYMBOL Voltage 48 16 R0
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 0
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 0
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMATTR Value 12V
SYMBOL Pmos 176 128 M180
SYMATTR InstName M2
SYMATTR Value IRF7204
SYMBOL res 304 144 R0
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 1
SYMBOL Nmos 480 384 R0
SYMATTR InstName M3
SYMATTR Value IRF530
SYMBOL Pmos 480 128 M180
SYMATTR InstName M4
SYMATTR Value IRF7204
SYMBOL ind 672 192 R0
SYMATTR InstName L1
SYMATTR Value 3ľ
SYMBOL res 592 192 R0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 47
TEXT 40 -40 Left 0 ;'Complimentary PWM Switch Series Inductor R2=52.114mW
TEXT 200 -8 Left 0 !.tran 0 1u 0 10n

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Transient Analysis]
{
Npanes: 2
{
traces: 3 {34603011,0,"I(L1)"} {34603012,0,"Id(M3)"} {524293,0,"-
Is(M4)"}
X: ('m',1,0,0.0001,0.001)
Y[0]: ('m',0,-0.9,0.1,0.5)
Y[1]: (' ',1,1e+308,0.3,-1e+308)
Amps: ('m',0,0,0,-0.9,0.1,0.5)
Log: 0 0 0
GridStyle: 1
},
{
traces: 2 {34603010,0,"I(R1)"} {524294,1,"V(M4S,M3D)*I(R2)"}
X: ('m',1,0,0.0001,0.001)
Y[0]: (' ',0,-1,1,11)
Y[1]: (' ',1,0,0.3,3.6)
Amps: (' ',0,0,0,-1,1,11)
Units: "W" (' ',0,0,1,0,0.3,3.6)
Log: 0 0 0
GridStyle: 1
}
}

 

[Mike Monett]

Oops - typo. M2S and M4S are mislabeled. They should be M2D and M4D. This
has no effect on the result.

Best Regards,

Mike Monett

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:48D97C76.2285ABDF@hotmail.com

krw wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

Your phrase "good enough for audio" does not inspire
confidence. I work in the professional / production
area of audio. 'Good enough' usually isn't for us.
Indeed, for a host of reasons I'd > also
probably want to transmit 24 bit audio. Some customers
might want 96 kHz sampling too.

Yes, I know you're a "professional" audiophool.

Just a professional.

But one with a pretty fair track record for hearing urban myths like the
crossover distortion that you claim exists in some power amplifiers. Trouble
is that on the test bench, that low level distortion is not to be found.
I've documented it for you in some cases, but AFAIK, no sale.

If you can't hear it, it's good enough.

Some people's ears are sharper than others.

Mostly the differences are in the brain, not the ears. The first problem
I've pointed out, and that is that many people tend to hear what they
believe is there, whether its there or not. Actually, just about everybody
suffers with the error-creating effects of bias, which is why carefully
bias-controlled listening tests are so important.

The other problem is that listener training is very important. Most people
will hear that something is wrong if its wrong enough. In order to get down
to the actual thresholds of detection, most need some coaching. If you want
to run fast you have to train a lot, which amounts to running slower than
record times and building up your strength. If you want to hear the smallest
amounts of distortion that are audible, it is usually very helpful to listen
to that distortion at decreasing levels, starting out pretty high.

I expect the phone would be good enough for you ?

Depends on the phone. If I make a phone up out of a good vocal mic and some
studio monitors, it will be pretty good. These days really good electret
mics cost pennies, while good earphone elements are relatively small and
cheap compared to speakers. Most of the inherent losses in modern phones are
in the communications channel, which is wildly bandwidth-reduced. As
bandwidth becomes cheaper, there is a possibility that good-sounding
telephones will become commonplace.

Why? I could care less about "professional"
audiophoolery. BTW, we
were talking about powered speakers, not "professional"
grade audio. 96kHz? What nonsense.

Many top studios are now mastering at 24 bit 192 kHz.

So what? Many are not.

The enabling technology is audio interfaces that run at 24/192 and cost no
more than the older ones that ran at 24/44. It's all just numbers for the
sake of numbers.

Note that Yamaha used to only make digital consoles that ran up to 24/96.
Most of their production is now consoles that only clock up to 48 KHz. This
is actually a little strange because converters and DSPs that are capable of
running faster are cheaper than ever. I think someone figured it out - the
higher sampling did nothing with practical significance.

Using products like this, reckoned to be the best in the
world and manufactured by another company I used to work
for.
http://prismsound.com/music_recording/products_subs/ada8xr/ada8xr_home.php

Vast overkill. But, if you're spending other people's money, and you think
you can use the value of your equipment to justify a higher pay rate for
yourself, why not?

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrngdit8a.i7u.don@manx.misty.com

I occasionally hear artifacts in 16 bit 44.1 KHz, in
music.

Given the false claim that you've posted below, I somehow find that easy to
believe.

It's a common problem among vinylphiles and other digiphobes. They believe
some totally false, but possibly intuitively satisfying (to them) urban
myths about digital, and since they believe them, they hear them. One more
reason why only carefully bias-controlled listening tests can be trusted.

It is easy to make a test signal turn up severe
artifacts with 44.1 KHz sample - see what happens with a
sinewave at a higher audio frequency that is several Hz
off a frequency that the sample frequency is a multiple of.

Absolutely false.

A close relative is the mistaken idea that phase differences that don't
correspond to the sample rate can't be accurately reproduced.

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:48DA3356.58DA847F@hotmail.com

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Don Klipstein" wrote

I occasionally hear artifacts in 16 bit 44.1 KHz, in
music.

Given the false claim that you've posted below, I
somehow find that easy to believe.

It is easy to make a test signal turn up severe
artifacts with 44.1 KHz sample - see what happens with a
sinewave at a higher audio frequency that is several Hz
off a frequency that the sample frequency is a multiple of.

Absolutely false.

Note that Graham is uncertain about the falseness of the above urban myth -
he has no comment.

And let me clarify my short comment. I've done my homework and tested
digital audio many ways. I've purposefully avoided using test signals that
are at frequencies that are related to the sample rate, and also used test
signals that were precisely clocked to the sample rate., or very near to it.

The effects claimed above simply don't exist. They might exist to a very
limited degree in undithered systems, but no proper digital audio system is
undithered.

It's a common problem among vinylphiles and other
digiphobes. They believe some totally false, but
possibly intuitively satisfying (to them) urban myths
about digital, and since they believe them, they hear
them. One more reason why only carefully bias-controlled
listening tests can be trusted.

So why do top-end studio use 24 bit 192 kHz like this
from my old friends and colleagues at Prism Sound ?

Same reason why people climb Mount Everest - it is there.

One
of the best companies I ever worked for btw.
http://prismsound.com/music_recording/products_subs/ada8xr/ada8xr_home.php

One can admire the precision and care of their engineering, regardless of
the lack of practical need.

Note that the ADA8xr converters have only 112 dB dynamic range, which is
equaled by competitive products costing only a fraction of the price. They
are significantly (numerically) surpassed by recent chips from TI that cost
about $10 each.

Sic Transit Gloria

 

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore"

Arny Krueger wrote:

It's a common problem among vinylphiles and other digiphobes. They
believe
some totally false, but possibly intuitively satisfying (to them) urban
myths about digital, and since they believe them, they hear them. One
more
reason why only carefully bias-controlled listening tests can be trusted.

So why do top-end studio use 24 bit 192 kHz like this from my old friends
and
colleagues at Prism Sound ?

** Ignoratio elenchi .....

Yaawnnnnnnnn.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi



...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore"
Arny Krueger wrote:

Yes, I know you're a "professional" audiophool.

Just a professional.

But one with a pretty fair track record for hearing urban myths like the
crossover distortion that you claim exists in some power amplifiers.

BECAUSE IT'S SO AUDIBLE IT STICKS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB.

** Bollocks.

Your precious ABX testing guarantees only a 'lowest common denominator'
result.

** Gobbledegook plus a massive non-sequitur.

Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX series must have
severely
damaged hearing.

** Shame how the rest of us do not have any of the defective examples YOU
claim YOU came across that lacked forward bias current in the output
devices.

Shame you were too lazy and dumb to give the bias trim pot a tweak.

Wanker.

You were in the forces weren't you ? Explains it all. Hearing damage.

** So what explains YOUR obvious brain damage then ?

Was it too much LSD or is it simply congenital ASD ???




..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore"

Arny Krueger wrote:

It's a common problem among vinylphiles and other digiphobes. They
believe some totally false, but possibly intuitively satisfying (to
them)
urban
myths about digital, and since they believe them, they hear them. One
more reason why only carefully bias-controlled listening tests can be
trusted.

So why do top-end studio use 24 bit 192 kHz like this from my old
friends
and colleagues at Prism Sound ?

** Ignoratio elenchi .....

Yaawnnnnnnnn.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

How do you KNOW that clock accuracy isn't a factor.

** More and worse ignoratio elenchi

GIANT yaawnnnnnnnn.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi


Peeeeeuuuuukkeeeeee......



...... Phil

 

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:48DA3CE9.80448428@hotmail.com

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
krw wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

Your phrase "good enough for audio" does not inspire
confidence. I work in the professional / production
area of audio. 'Good enough' usually isn't for us.
Indeed, for a host of reasons I'd > also
probably want to transmit 24 bit audio. Some customers
might want 96 kHz sampling too.

Yes, I know you're a "professional" audiophool.

Just a professional.

But one with a pretty fair track record for hearing
urban myths like the crossover distortion that you claim
exists in some power amplifiers.

BECAUSE IT'S SO AUDIBLE IT STICKS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB.

Everyplace but on test equipment, and in careful listening tests.

Let the record show that I have a number of QSC amps on hand to test, have
done so, and reported the results to Graham on Usenet. He has no such
resources at hand.

Your precious ABX testing guarantees only a 'lowest
common denominator' result.

Horsefeathers.

ABX verifies or improves the known audible thresholds for the detection of
ALL KNOWN forms of distortion.

Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX
series must have severely damaged hearing.

It just takes a lack of hysteria and making sure that the equipment is not
damaged.

You were in the forces weren't you ?

You engineer live sound in a music bar night after night?

Explains it all.

Speaks to your prejudice against the military Graham, and also your
inability to understand what I have reported again and again:

(1) When I report listening test results, I don't report on findings
obtained with only me as a listener.

(2) Test equipment doesn't lie - if it finds negligible low-level
distortion, no matter how bad the ops hearing is, the distortion isn't
there.

Hearing damage.

In your case Graham it is all about prejudice and hysteria. Of course you
think QSC amps suck - they are a highly competitive product.